Forum: Jim Windham

Plan to sunset accountability system in Texas goes too far

HOUSTON - Former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff has been stumping the state with
provocative recommendations on the future of the Texas public education
accountability system. There is much to ponder in his interview with
the Caller-Times Editorial Board (Viewpoints Page, April 13 and 14).
Ratliff deserves tremendous credit for his leadership of the most
sweeping transformation of the Texas Education Code since World War II,
which propelled Texas to national leadership in accountability.

However, I have two concerns. First, there is no doubt we have made
tremendous progress since the implementation of the reforms he
legislated. But I take issue with a point Ratliff made in his
Caller-Times interview that "the atmosphere regarding public schools
has become one that is damaging to the morale of teachers and
educators."

Harder tasks are before us

Many of us believe that, for all of our progress, the easier phases
of the transformation of our education system are behind us and the
more difficult phases lie ahead if we are to reach the level of student
achievement that will allow our children to be successful in a much
more competitive world.

If this candid assessment is demoralizing, it is not our intention,
but I believe that we are not yet asking enough of our children or our
educators, that our expectations are not commensurate with our
capabilities, nor are we being candid enough with the public about the
challenges we face in developing the schools we need. If the truth
hurts, we need to get over it. Reform is never over and, rather than
slow the pace of it at this point, we must accelerate it.

Second, most of the serious reformers with whom I work agree with
Ratliff that, for many of the reasons he outlined, the current Texas
accountability system needs a complete overhaul. My organization is
working with others to accomplish this outcome. However, there is a
problem with his proposal that the Legislature sunset the entire
accountability system, which is twofold - one is tactical, in that a
sunset provision would put Texas in a state of uncertainty and policy
turmoil during a period of up to two years during which nothing
definitive is in the offing for reauthorization of the No Child Left
Behind Act; the other part of the problem concerns the end game: what
should accountability be about?

If I understand his reported comments accurately, Ratliff wants a
system that is essentially one that provides diagnostic tools along
with public reporting requirements, without the so-called "high stakes"
consequences of testing.

But I would submit that accountability without high stakes outcomes
is not accountability at all, particularly in an essentially
monopolistic delivery system without comprehensive school choice. He
has made other points about the problems of micro-management by the
state and the virtues of local control which are well-taken. However
much we believe in the principle of local control, it cannot be allowed
to be "lowest common denominator control," without rigorous state
standards and accountability for results.

On at least one point I believe we agree completely - that we don't
have all the answers and that we need a joint select committee or
similar group to study and make recommendations for an overhaul of the
system as soon as possible.

Jim Windham of Houston is president of the Texas Institute for
Education Reform.